For now I will leave to my esteemed colleagues the discussions on the new impeachment case, the unconstitutional GRP-MILF MOA-AD, the Joc-Joc joke and other hot stuff in the news today.
Instead, I’m going to take a leaf from Blackshama‘s book and focus on another of my personal advocacies — education. Specifically, a program of the University of the Philippines — the country’s national university.
Over beer and chicken inasal a number of nights ago, the conversation between former classmate Myuzeeshun, high priest-slayer Marocharim, and I drifted towards the University of the Philippines, service contracts for UP alumni, the UP student population nowadays, and previous discussions on educational models in general, and eventually these two UP alumni gave me a crash course on what is apparently called the Revitalized General Education Program (RGEP).
It made me sick out of pure disappointment. What sort of national university finds it necessary to teach high school subjects?
For all the arrogance in the claim of some UP students that the UPCAT proves the worth of their intelligence (the “di ka kasi pumasa ng UPCAT” diatribe I’ve seen them use), I find it ironic that the REGP still offers subjects such as Math 1 (Introduction to Mathematics, which is no more than grade school set theory), Math 17 (Algebra, or rather, the second year high school version of it), Communication Arts I (grade school English in the form of teaching students where to put a comma), and suchlike. Even more ironic is that there are students who fail such basic subjects.
Here’s what I think: UP is wasting taxpayers’ money by funding these classes. Students who qualify for a UP education must not have any need for these subjects; my stand has always been that students must have learned the basics in primary and secondary school. One should be able to enter a university only after being equipped with the skills necessary for tertiary education.
With all the hoo-hah relating to the issue of UP (and other state colleges and universities… especially with other SCUs getting much less due to UP’s grabbing the large slice of the funding pie) having funding problems, I would suppose that the first step that should have been taken was to cut the fat out. As with any organization facing a financial crisis, any non-value generating or nonperforming asset should have been discarded.
With quite a number of RGEP classes being subjects supposedly taught in elementary school and high school, it would be in our best interest that these subjects be scrapped from the curriculum. Heck, discard the RGEP in favor of a true tertiary educational curriculum; let the elementary and high schools teach the basics, UP shouldn’t have to teach these.
Or, if the school is, after a fashion, no more than just the University of Peoplesupport (trademark pending bleh), then perhaps we should let things be, and waste more taxpayers’ money.
Fertilizer scams and Euro generals don’t even waste a fraction as much as the RGEP educational model does.
Popularity: 4% [?]
I would surmise that such a program is intended to allow university entrants who suffered substandard education (whether in the public or private schooling system) especially in the provinces but showed enough skill to pass the UPCAT, to achieve an equal footing with their better schooled counterparts.
That being said, I find the program a highly socialist solution to a problem that I don’t think UP should be addressing in the first place, or if they are addressing it, they are addressing it the wrong way.
I would surmise this means there’s something hellishly wrong with the UPCAT in its current form, if this is actually needed.
Repetition is one of the keys to learning so reteaching basic math is not a wasted investment.
cvj,
I don’t think the technique here is in question, my own perspective about the whole thing is that… could they have dared lower the standards of UPCAT to accomodate more people, and then applied this as a band-aid to address that in turn?
Jon, i wouldn’t be able to discount that possibility, however, from what i remember taking the UPCAT (in its 1983 version), it measured mental aptitude (in math, abstract thinking and english) rather than stock of knowledge. If the latter holds, then it is possible to pass the UPCAT even while not having had the requisite foundation knowledge which Primary and Secondary education was supposed to give, in which case, your assessment (in the first paragraph at 11:06am) applies.
Even educated people unjustly abuse their voting rights. Education is not only about being literate or highly educated. Education should impart awareness of who he/she is and what he/she ought to do. Literary and specialized education certainly serve many purpose but what purpose would it be if our current government cannot even provide future employment.
The current standard of our educational system do not reach majority. The majority lacks the nutrition to even focus and sustain. I would suggest to feed the children to learn the very basic. A progressive social system will help our future children to easily pass the UPCAT. I could care less to those who can afford. They will get out of the country anyway, like me :)
not all RGEP courses were very basic. your description of the courses aren’t exactly correct. just because math 17 is algebra doesn’t mean it can’t be taught another way, in a better way, in a way that is at par with the UP standard.
your post sounds arrogant. and no, i didn’t fail any of my RGEP courses.
I disagree, teaching math 17 that you frown upon is not a waste of time. I benefitted a lot from that subject and I know that hordes of other alumnis of public high school like me also benefitted from that subject.
I admit that I am not intelligent enough when I passed the UPCAT, and there are hordes of us that did enter UP that could be labeled by anyone as not too bright. But its not entirely our fault. We are victims of the faulty public education system.
How could anyone like me, who came from a public high school, who did not comprehend a thing like basic linear equations and simple algebra, can enter the premier university. Should all of us be barred from entering college because of the faulty education system?
I think that passing the UPCAT should not be equated to being a full-fledged UP student. It is in what a student do in after passing the UPCAT thata should be used as measure.
I remember a lot of students, classmates in Math 17, that did not persevere because they are think that they know all about algebra because of they come from good high schools. They flunked that “basic” subject. Supposedly mas matalino sila sa mga public schools.
RGEP is one of two of Dodong Nemenzo’s legacies to UP, the other is the wiring of all UP campuses.
Like in any good idea, the RGEP implementation has its bad and good sides. I say RGEP is a good idea since it tried to follow the better idea of liberal education, where students have a say on what they learn. Students identify what they think is relevant to them, with pedagogical guidance of course. (In the old system, the curriculum was to rigidly promote UP’s view of a nationalist education)
But nonetheless the implementation has a lot to be desired. First of all even in Diliman, not all colleges offer enough RGEP courses. Engineering offers two I think. Compare this with Science, CSSP, Arts and Letters, who offer many. Since students have to take units within the arts, science and social science clusters, they tend to be limited in their choices.
For example our Environment Science 1 RGEP course is always overbooked. Why? Other science departments offer only few sections in their RGEP course offerings!
Professors may get more incentive in teaching RGEP if a European model is adopted. In Europe it is a tradition that a Prof that attracts a lot of students gets more pay on top of what they get.
In UP even if I want a lot of students, I don’t get appropriate increase in pay. The overload pay doesn’t really compensate for the trouble.
If you think the RGEP situation is bad in Diliman, think of how it is in UP Tacloban?
Another problem is that UP professors mainly products of the old system are ill equipped or oriented to teach RGEP, which as Dodong envisioned requires more creativity and flexibility in teaching and assessing learning. Most UP profs with few exceptions are not that creative.
I try to do my bit by beginning to deemphasize written exams (but not totally eliminate it!) in assessment but include self-assessment and student directed learning in Environment Science 1 RGEP course. Students are required to audit their lifestyles, to do a proactive way of intervention to a environmental problem in their communities and to communicate what they have done in the semester to the public.
Sounds like fun? Yes it is! Sounds like a fast route to a grade of 1.0? No. This pedagogical approach makes getting a 1.0 hard. If students want a 1.0, then the old UP way of assessing students is the way to go. However in that way,once they get their grades, the learning flies off their heads! I try to do my RGEP course as a chance for transformative learning.
@stoxbnx3 — granted that not all subjects in the RGEP curriculum are not basic, should we not cut the fat by discarding the basic subjects and allocate the freed resources to those that are not?
for instance, discard basic english composition (something taught from elementary upwards) to something more advanced like gender-sensitive english composition; or, yet another instance, discard basic algebra (something taught from second year high and upwards) in favor of something more advanced like number theory.
the list can go on. as to teaching the same, basic subject another way, there is no way that a(b+c) = ab + ac can be taught a different way, can it?
@ishmael ahab — i am myself a product of a public high school under the SEDP curriculum, as well as a public elemntary school. basic algebra was taught in grades five and six, reinforced in high school. linear theory was taught from second year high school and up.
i submit that the phrase “faulty public school system” does a major disservice to our teachers, who by and large have produced students competent for tertiary education — at least those who have persevered. the issue of failure due to lack perseverance has naught to do with the subject but rather with the readiness of the student for higher learning.
furthermore, jon’s 11:06 and cvj’s 1:08 illustrate how the UPCAT fails in measuring the readiness of the UP candidate for tertiary education. not only should the RGEP be revisited and revamped, but the UPCAT should be revamped as well as part of driving a higher degree of excellence we should expect from the country’s flagship university.
@blackshama — shouldn’t those difficulties be a strong argument for the scrapping of non-value generating courses to allocate more resources to value-adding RGEP courses? i agree with the concept of giving more liberal arts electives to engineers (and more science and math electives to BA students) to provide a more well-rounded education to UP students, but to do that we’ll have to revamp the core courses of these curricula. for instance, remove basic math subjects for engineering students (they should already have these skills should they chosen this academic career path), and re-allocate these units to liberal arts electives.
i agree that UP should be more cognizant of excellence, heck, even competence, of professors imparting knowledge to their students. to be able to reward them, however, we need to have resources, and with the tight education budget we should find ways not only to make money for UP but to likewise reduce the overhead by cutting out the non-essential.
The Marxist Dodong Nemenzo is, I still wonder why he agreed that the RGEP program with its choice offerings of courses is really modelled on a capitalist model. BTW it is precisely the lack of relevant RGEP courses that forces engineering majors to take basic math or chemistry majors to take chemistry 1 ( which BTW won’t pass with their academic advisors).
However I think, the transition from the command and planned “economy” of GE courses to the market driven “economy” of RGEP isn’t over yet. Like in any market economy, if you want to sell the a new product you have to raise more capital. UP has not invested the requisite capital,thus we have this mess.
Dodong Nemenzo must be the Deng Xiao Ping of the UP academe. It matters not if the cat is black or white as long as it catches mice. The problem is there are few mice to catch.
Even if I don’t agree with many of Dodong Nemenzo’s idea, I find him as one of the very few entertaining Marxists at UP. (At least with Dodong, Marxism still has a bit of relevance) I still believe his RGEP is revolutionary, but I also think very few in UP has appreciated that. I think your comments on non-valued RGEP courses fits well within Dodong’s revisionist idea but again very few in the UP have really got a grip on that.
could these be contributing factors as to why the RGEP program has stagnated, if not rotted on the vine, so to speak?
(i get what criticisms of what seem to be a similar bent on this post’s adaptation on my personal blog. interesting, really.)
Currently streaming live now. UP Centennial Lecture: The Future of Higher Learning and UP by Dr. Maria Serena I. Diokno, former Vice President for Academic Affairs, one of the brains behind RGEP, I believe. Hopefully it will answer a lot of your questions re: UP’s direction in Higher Learning, etc. http://dilc.upd.edu.ph/
Ive found this article in the New Atlantis, “Is Stupid Making Us Google?”
Prof. Diokno addresses a lot of issues raised in this discussion. Sayang. You should watch the archived webcast in dilc.upd.edu.ph. You may also watch Dr. Nebrez’ lecture.
in every learning approach it always pays to work from the bottom. the people who designed RGEP are some of the most brilliant minds in their field. trust that they did their homework before they implement or even propose these changes. UP is the premiere university where some of the country’s most brilliant minds are nurtured. they’re no idiots. i am a UP alumnus and the people i work with trust that i know what i’m doing.
arpee lazaro,
You really sounded like a UP alumnus…no doubt…
i wonder if you are also willing to accept the fact that many of our leaders and previous leaders were from your school..UP..and that they havent done anything, or shall i say their brilliant minds were not able to move this country forward..their brilliant minds didnt lift the lives of the filipino people…their brilliant minds didnt help at all…
In fact these leaders and previous leaders from your beloved UP even robbed our country and the filipino people…please dont ask me for any evidence…as I will only point you to the present situation the Philippines is into right now.
When I was a small kid…i used to have high respects to people going to your beloved UP…brilliant filipinos…my idols…can turn this country around…well, that was when I was small…
arpee, the teaching from the bottom concept is something i will agree with if and only if what is taught are the basic tertiary level subjects, not a rehash of secondary school education.
i’m sure nemenzo et al did a lot of groundwork on the the RGEP concept, but the systemic framework and the implementation have a lot to be desired (as blackshama, himself a UP educator) points out above.
as such, i call the RGEP system an idiocy — either it’s done right or it’s wastage of time, money, potential human capital, et cetera. either it’s fixed, or we’re going to continue to waste resources. that’s the idiocy.
note that although i call RGEP idiocy, i have not yet called those who’ve gone through the RGEP system idiots.
i could be wrong on either or both counts, but there’s the comment thread on my personal blog to consider as well.
ryoga, thanks for the link, will watch it as soon as i can. might clear up some more questions i have about UP spending.
oh, blackshama, might i request your assistance in bringing this debate challenge to a real forum?
to juwan_d
you sound like you hate UP alumni. i don’t blame you, but it wouldn’t be right to condemn the entire university just because of the actions of some key people who happened to come from UP. the issue is our friend jester here thinks RGEP is idiocy. I disagree with him. he worries about taxpayers money wasted with the rehash of the old GE courses. I’ve seen the new RGEP and because i have been the product of UP education, I can safely say that the RGEP is not a waste of money, to which jester disagrees. Jester himself is a product of UP and has undergone the same GE courses. he happens to have a different experience.
brilliant people not helping other people, that’s an entirely different story to which i cannot contest because I have not gone through the same experience thus do not share the resentment.
i failed math three times, and natsci once, and i dont know what else i failed.
anyway the point is perhaps these subjects wouldnt be required if we had the 7th and 8th grades plus high school but we dont. basic fact is kids enter college far too young and far too raw.
a college education is as much acculturization as it is providing the foundations for a particular expertise. it’s the means by which people get immersed in the academic and non academic components of a national life and so forth.
it’s all been downhill since latin was discarded in schools.
Well, probably I can answer if RGEP is indeed nonsense cause I was included in the first batch of RGEP students back in 2002. I don’t believe that the things that were being taught were ‘rehash’ subjects back in elementary and high school because for example in math 1 and math 2 there were different approaches on how we perceive math. i thought then that math 2 was just a repeat of math 1 but I was mistaken as it was a totally different thing. It’s really the teacher’s creativity on how they will make their subjects not a ‘rehash’ of the old thing. Math actually became somewhat interesting and not only concerned with finding x. I had math 11 then and it was so bombarded with x’s and y’s, nevertheless I still enjoyed it. The most interesting RGEP subjects were in CAL and CSSP such as Pan pil 19 (literature and sexuality), Pan pil17 (literature and popular culture), socsci 3 ( gender and society).
Sometimes, students ( and even adults ) needed to be reminded of the most basic ones because complex things makes one forget the simple things. Professors would admit that it sounds like a ‘rehash’ but really, it boils down on how they would make their curriculum interesting. There are some positive and negative things about rgep, as for me it was beneficial for me (not because of the grades, believe me I got a 2.75 in math 1) because i took the courses that would be useful and related to my course then.
UP plays on the country’s needs. As such, UP must admit that the country’s basic education program is weak compared to other countries. For crying out loud we only have 10 years of basic education. UP’s RGEP makes-up for this.
I’m a freshman currently taking Computer Science at UPD. Your thoughts remind me of my Computer Programming I instructor last sem. He wanted to use the book used by Computer Science greats such as UC Berkeley and MIT in our class. However, that book uses a lot of advance mathematics. As we are only taking Math17 last semester, it would be inappropriate. He had to make do with a toned-down version of the book. If it’s any consolation (for him, for us, for you), that “toned-down version” is also used by other top-univeristies such as Rice University, among others.
And also, calling Math17 as “Algebra, or rather, the second year high school version of it” is an oversimplification of the said course. Math17 is THE WHOLE of high school Math sans the nitty-gritties of third year Geometry. And, as the Dean of the College of Eng’g puts it in the orientation we had last summer, not everyone has had a good high school math background (hence, the need for Math17).
As for the UPCAT, I am under the impression that the UPCAT is designed as an admission exam for a UNIVERSITY not just some Science and Technology/Engineering school. True enough, some students manage to get into S&T/Eng’g courses without having a very good Math and Science background because of this fact. But lo and behold most of them are eventually weeded out due to the retention rules of UP Colleges. This gives everyone–whether you came from a high school with dismally deteriorating buildings, a Science High School or a prestigious private institution–an equal chance of getting a shot at their desired degree program.
(Post Thought: Even other higher institutes of learning offer “give-away” GE-equivalent courses. Check out Caltech’s Math17, entitled “How to Solve It”. Here’s the link: http://pr.caltech.edu/catalog/courses/listing/ma.html )
This article just reveals the authors ignorance about RGEP. Math 17 is not an RGEP subject, it is a prerequisite of many science courses that’s why many UP students take it. It has a similar content as what undergraduate students take at Harvard. It has one of the highest failing rates in UP. On the other Math 1 is an RGEP, but not a repetition of elementary and high school mathematics. Here students are exposed to different areas of mathematics such as set theory, logic, number theory, abstract algebra, calculus and statistics. Here you’ll learn that 1+1 is not always 2, p implies q is not the same as q implies p, and curved surfaces have areas. Only in UP you can find first year students who know about groups, rings, fields, rules of inference, integration and differentiation.
I think that why UP have this –> http://old.uplb.edu.ph/webmaster/389
Math 17 is College Algebra and Trigonometry, not basic algebra. It’s a required subject for roughly all BS freshmen and a prerequisite for the elementary calculus series.
While it is true that some high school students (especially those from the likes of Pisay, etc.) have already covered the topics here, some have not.
For those who feel that Math 17 is so basic for them to take, there’s always the APE (Advanced Placement Examination).
First, do you honestly believe that Dodong is still Marxist?
Second, my argument against the RGEP is that it takes students away from those subjects that are very important to us as Filipinos but most students will be having a hard time to pass, like KAS and PI. These students would rather get something easy just to pass rather than those subjects that have a really high value of learning.
Studying history is one of the best ways that we can become a better country. The faults of our past should never be repeated in the present nor in the future.
i think rgep has its good side. as what was implied, these are but basic subjects yet many still fail it. if we dont focus on the basic or foundation theories how will we be so confident that these student can pass their higher subjects?
i may also add, these RGEP are refresher courses. not all the lessons we had esp. in highscool were retained in us so i think these courses are not that bad after all.